Contents
Section I: BMIC Project Liable to be dismissed due to Fraud
committed in clearance mechanism.
Section II: Denial of Public Domain Information and Human Rights Abuse in
Environmental Public Hearings
Section III: Suppression of Relevant Facts in the NOC accorded by KSPCB
Section IV: Environment Impact Assessment: What it has Deliberately Ignored
Section V: Analysis of what is contained in the MECON EIA of the BMIC
Project
In summary
Section I: BMIC Project
Liable to be dismissed due to Fraud committed in clearance mechanism.
1. At
the outset it is brought to the notice of the Ministry of Environment and
Forests and the Expert Committee reviewing projects related to Infrastructure
Development and Miscellaneous Projects, that M/s. Nandi Infrastructure
Corridor Enterprise (NICE), the Project Developer, and the Government of of
Karnataka (GOK) have committed fraud in wrongly presenting the credentials of
the “Company” and the “Consortium” proposed to develop the Bangalore Mysore
Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMIC).
The details are provided below.
2. The
Executive Summary of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) of the BMIC
Project, dated September/October 1999 (01.S2.98.P040), prepared by M/s MECON
Ltd., Bangalore for NICE, includes the GOK Order No. PWD 32 CSR 95, Bangalore,
dated 20th November 1995. It
is stated therein that:
“the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project Report submitted by the
consortium of M/s Vanasse Hangen
Brustlin Inc. and S. A. B. Engineering and Construction Inc. of U. S. A. and
M/s Kalyani Group Ltd. is accepted by Government…” (Emphasis not in
original)
This Order was issued having acknowledged in its Preamble as follows:
“When His Excellency, the Governor of Massachusetts State, U. S. A., during his
visit to India, had discussion with Hon’ble Chief Minister of Karnataka on 20th
February 1995, the Government of Karnataka entered into memorandum of
understanding (M.O.U.) with consortium
of M/s. Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc. and S.A.B. Engineering and Construction
Inc., U.S.A. and M/s Kalyani Group Ltd. in the presence of His Excellency,
Governor of Massachusetts and Hon’ble Chief Minister of Karnataka. Under this M.O.U., the Consortium has to
conduct preliminary investigation, economic survey etc. for the expressway
between Bangalore-Mysore and submit preliminary project report to the
Government and if this project is economically feasible, then the Government
could take further action.” (Emphasis
not in original)
It further adds that:
“For review of the project report work
done by the above consortium and also give necessary advice, recommendation
etc., one High Level Committee was formed under the chairmanship of Hon’ble
Minister for Public Works in Government Order No. PWD 32 CSR 95 dated 5.6.1995. In this High Level Committee, the Principal
Secretary Commerce and Industries Department, Principal Secretary Housing and
Urban Development, Secretary Public Works Department, Chief Engineer C&B
(South Zone), Bangalore, the Chairman and Managing Director Karnataka State
Industrial Investment Development Corporation were official members and the
Chairman, Technical Advisory Committee (Irrigation) was non-official
member. This Committee was meeting
often to review` progress made and necessary advice and clarification were
being given. The consortium
presented their ‘Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project’ on 26.8.1995
at “KRISHNA” before the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Chief Minister and Hon’ble
Ministers for Finance, Revenue, Home, Public Works, Major and Medium Industries
and Major Irrigation and the High Level Committee members and other concerned
officers. The High Level Committee after conducting meetings and obtaining all
clarification desired, submitted their report to Government on 12.10.1995. This report of the High Level Committee
and the project report submitted by this consortium was examined in detail on 6.11.1995 by the Cabinet Sub-Committee
for ‘examining the foreign capital
investment cases’ and recommended that this report should be brought before
the Cabinet’. (Emphasis not in
original)
It also adds that:
“This project work will be constructed
completely by this private entrepreneurs with their own resources and
keeping with them for thrity years to get their return of the expenditure,
profit, etc. through collection of tolls.
The land acquisition expenditure will also be borne by them. To make this project viable they had
proposed seven townships.” But “(c)onsidering the opinion of the Finance Department
and also for making this project economically viable the Government considered
it profitable to have five townships leaving the township No. 3, the Heritage
Centre at Ramangara and township No6, Agricultural centre, near Mandya.”
(Emphasis not in original)
And the Preamble concludes by stating that:
“The project report as explained above, has been examined in detail. It was felt that the Bangalore-Mysore
Infrastructure Corridor Project considering five townships instead of seven
townships would be economically viable.
With this modification the recommendation made by the High Level
Committee was examined in detail by the
Government.” (Emphasis not in original)
It is clear from the above that the GOK
claims to have “examined in detail” the proposal put forth by the Consortium.
3. NICE
presented the “Environment Impact and
Socio-Economic Assessment Report (Comprehensive Report)” for the BMIC
Project prepared by M/s MECON Ltd. during September
1999 as the basis for obtaining NOC from the Karnataka State Pollution
Control Board and final Environmental Clearance from the Union Ministry of
Environment and Forests. The “Project
Proponent” is described here as:
“M/s Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Limited (NICE) a company formed by M/s Kalyani Group, Vanabe Hangen Brusten Inc., and SAB International
Ltd., proposes to design and construct the 111 km infrastructure corridor
that will efficiently move vehicles and transmit utilities between Mysore and
Bangalore cities. As the owners of this
Build-Own-Operate-Transfer (BOOT) Project, M/s NICE will develop the financial
plan to implement the project in its various phases and operate the facilities
after the completion of construction….”.
It may be noted here that “Vanabe Hangen Brusten Inc.”, as stated, is
perhaps a misspelling for Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc. (as quoted in MOU
adverted to earlier) that is claimed to be part of the Company.
4. Every
piece of literature produced by NICE since its inception, lays claim to VHB’s
integral involvement in the BMIC project.
The official website of NICE, www.nicelimited.com
(last modified on 01/05/00, and downloaded on 22 May 2001) lays claim to the
involvement of the Mr. Richard Hangen, President of VHB, as part of the
“Supervisory Committee” of the Project.
The site further defines VHB’s involvement in the “Project Consortium”,
along with the Kalyani Group of
Companies, and SAB
International LTD, as
follows:
“VHB International LTD. (VHB) is a major transportation, land
development and environmental services firm. The parent company, Vanasse Hangen
Brustlin, Inc., was founded in 1979 as a transportation firm. VHB has emerged
as an industry leader in the fields of engineering, planning and applied
sciences. VHB has wide experience in engineering design and construction
management of large scale highway projects. The firm's land development group
is well versed and experienced in the issues of township/ community planning
and development. VHB will be the
Consortium's lead engineer for the Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor
Project”. (Emphasis not in original)
5. In
absolute contradiction to all that has been stated above, regarding VHB’s
involvement in NICE, Mr. Richard Hangen, President of VHB, has emphatically denied the involvement of his
company in the BMIC project in any manner whatsoever. This has been stated in an exchange of
correspondence with the undersigned:
“VHB is not and never has been a
principal in Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise (NICE). VHB was engaged by NICE to prepare a
preliminary plan for the BMIC. This
plan was completed in 1995. Since then
VHB has not been involved”. He
further adds: “I do not know of the
existence of any scope defining a future role for us” This correspondence took
place via email between 27 March and 3rd April 2001 and the relevant
extracts are enclosed at Annexure A.
6. Mr.
Richard Hangen’s statements are of crucial importance legally and to the
techno-economic health of the BMIC project.
It exposes the NICE lies and
their fraudulent claims to VHB’s involvement in the BMIC project:
a)
as a
member of the “Project Consortium”,
b)
as
part of the “Company”, and
c)
as
well as “lead engineer” of the project.
7.
Mr. Hangen’s statement also exposes the GOK, for since
the inception of the project in February 1995, every MOU, order, agreement or
such other document pertaining to the project has supported NICE’s claim of
VHB’s involvement in the BMIC Project.
Explicitly on such basis, all support of the GOK to the project has been
extended. This includes:
·
land acquisition (21,000 acres at highly subsidised
rates of which 7,000 acres under the control of GOK, including forests and
wetlands, are provided almost free);
·
water supply (150 MLD potable water for which charges
have not been fixed and 85 MLD waste water free);
·
energy supply (upto 500 MW capacity development
permissions and compulsory buy back agreement of excess power generated);
·
egregious tax holidays (almost all urban and
infrastructure development taxes are waived);
·
waiver of NICE’s responsibility to Resettlement and
Rehabilitation of displaced communities;
·
exclusive authority over management of townships and
expressways for lease period including governance;
·
and last but certainly not the least, a land transfer agreement
that allows NICE to retain the land acquired for the BMIC project, even in the
event the project fails.
8.
In addition to all the legal violations of NICE and GOK
in pushing this project through, the techno-economic capacity for developing
such a massive urban/infrastructure development scheme, the first such in Asia,
will have to be considered with the greatest care and attention to detail. Two statements, in documents supplied for
the environmental clearance mechanism, matter a great deal for the Ministry of
Environment and Forests:
a)
The aforementioned MOU recognises this project to be a
“foreign capital investment case” and that “(t)his project work will be constructed completely by this private
entrepreneurs with their own resources”.
The private entrepreneur in the understanding of the MOU includes
VHB, Kalyani Group and SAB Engineering and Construction Inc.
b)
And then, it has been submitted by NICE to KSPCB, per
Form XIII under Sections 25 or 26 of the Water Act, that “the company will incur
all expenditure for construction and implementation of the project”. The “company”, as defined in the EIA
prepared by MECON during September/October 1999, includes VHB, Kalyani Group
and SAB.
VHB says it has never been involved in
the BMIC project, except for a brief period when it did some consultancy
work during 1995, and has no intention
of getting involved in the future.
Kalyani Group has absolutely no experience in developing such a massive
project. And as for SAB Engineering and
Construction Ltd, perhaps the same, or not even, as the SAB International
described in the EIA, it has not got a single project of this scale to its
credit, despite being in the business, as claimed, since 1979! It thus becomes necessary to dis-believe
NICE’s claims of possessing the required techno-economic substance and
investment capacity as specious, to say the least.
9. Raising the very critical question, in this
context, whether the involvement of Mr. Narayanan Vaghul, Chairman of
Industrial Credit Investment Corporation of India (ICICI), who is also the
Chairman of the Board of Directors of NICE, has influenced the decision of
ICICI to commit funding to the BMIC Project of NICE, as has been publicly
reported? This when NICE would have
been unable to provide documented proof of VHB’s involvement?
10.
All in all, the bluff about VHB involvement has been
called. It is imperative at this stage for the Ministry of Environment and
Forests not to be a party to a most shocking fraud that is being perpetrated by
NICE with tacit support of GOK and KSPCB on the wider public interest. Thus, per Sec. 4 of the EIA
Notification, the BMIC Project proposal of NICE seeking environmental clearance
must be rejected summarily, and the NOC accorded by KSPCB cancelled.
Section II Denial
of Public Domain Information and Human Rights Abuse in Environmental Public
Hearings
11.
Even as the Grounds provided in Section I of this
representation are adequate enough for rejection of the project, it is once
more brought to the notice of the Ministry that the NOC accorded by KSPCB was
based on Environmental Public Hearings that were featured denial of public
domain information and blatant abuse of human rights of citizens by the
State. This matter is now before the
National Human Rights Commission, per Case No. 242/10/2000-2001 and the
decision is being awaited. As the abuse
was part of the environmental clearance process, details of which have already
been communicated to the Ministry, it would be appropriate for the Ministry to
await the Commission’s decision before proceeding on any matter pertaining to
the BMIC Project.
Section III Suppression of Relevant Facts in the NOC
accorded by KSPCB
12.
Despite the absolute secrecy maintained by GOK, KSPCB
and NICE on all matters pertaining to the BMIC Project, various committed
individuals and groups have extensively reviewed the project from the partial
information that has been made available. From their own independent ground
surveys and extensive knowledge of the area, they have developed a critical analysis
of the project’s impacts. These have
been submitted to KSPCB prior to and during the Public Hearings. Yet to a large extent, none of these
concerns or issues raised find even a mention in the Hearings’ reports or form
the basis of the conditions framed in the NOC.
These representations are now being brought, once again, to the notice
of the Ministry highlight that GOK and KSPCB have deliberately suppressed
critical concerns.
a)
Mysore Grahakara Parishat submitted a note on 29
February 2000 detailing its grounds for
opposition to the BMIC Project, particularly in light of viable alternatives to
enable safe and high volume public transport that was both affordable and did
not involve extensive land acquisition and displacement of communities. This note also exposed the deceptive claims
on traffic flow patterns projected by NICE.
This note along with Additional Objections and Suggestions filed on 30
June 2000 are annexed at Annexure .B.
b)
Centre for Science and Technology submitted a letter
dated 3rd July 2000 to KSPCB stating that the claim of NICE to desilting 251 irrigation tanks within five kms. of the
Expressway as a social gesture is specious, as the same would cost the promoter
Rs. 1,255 crores! This note is
annexed at Annexure C.
c)
Members of the Birdwatchers Field Club of Bangalore
presented a note to the Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore on 3rd July
2000 questioning how large extents of forest
land was being allocated to the project, especially those where heavy
expenditure exceeding Rs. 9 crores had been incurred for afforestation based on
a loan from OECF, Japan. This note
also brought to light that NICE had wrongly stated to the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka in Writ Petition 29221 of 1997 that no forestland would be utilised
for the project. This note along with
relevant extracts from the Annual Plan of Operation for 1998-99 of the
Karnataka Forest Department demonstrating the OECF loan component is annexed at
Annexure D. A submission in this regard was made at the 5th
July 2000 Public Hearing held at Bangalore, but these objections have been
withheld by the KSPCB, while forwarding the proposal to the Ministry. Video clippings taken at the public hearing
are available to substantiate this claim.
d)
NICE
ridiculously claimed that it would provide “naturally developed and camouflaged
animal passes along the expressway along the established paths” wild animal
migration corridors. This
was in a letter dated 25 March 2000 responding to queries in this regard from
The Wilderness Club. The Conservator of
Forests, Bangalore Circle, has made an equally ridiculous statement on the
subject in his letter dated 29 March 2000 as follows: “In the proposed area
there are not many animals. However,
there are adjoining forest area where wild animals, if any, can move as and
when required”. These letters along
with the query letter of the Club, dated 2nd March 2000, are
enclosed at Annexure E.
e)
The alignment of the BMIC Project is a known elephant
migration corridor. Human elephant
conflicts in this area have been a matter of great concern. In recent years, elephants have crossed over
from the Bannerghatta National Park all the way to the Savandurga forest,
clearly a region that straddles across the corridor alignment. Considering that existing human settlements
are already causing high risk to the animals, INCERT brought this to the notice
of the Karnataka Forest Department.
This letter dated 13 March 1999 along with relevant press reports and an
acknowledgement of this problem by the Karnataka Forest Dept. are enclosed at Annexure F.
Section IV Environment Impact
Assessment: What it has Deliberately Ignored
13.
There are several ways to review an EIA, and we have
chosen the most commonsensical and simple approach. This is to demonstrate that even
from this least rigorous scale of review, the EIA presented by M/s MECON, comes
across as a document without depth of research, glosses over several key
impacts expected of such large urban/transport/industrial/infrastructure
development projects, and deliberately fails to disclose several key data that
need to be supplied for proper review.
Importantly, it provides data
that is not correct whilst offering ridiculous analysis aimed at distracting
attention from some very real concerns of the BMIC project.
14.
From a rough estimation, the following environmental
impacts can be expected due to the BMIC Project, as described in the EIA.
a)
The
question of water: In
addition to the metropolitan cities of Bangalore and Mysore (with a combined
population of 75 lakhs), there already exist seven very large urban areas,
including one major city (Mandya), along the two existing highways connecting
the cities of Bangalore and Mysore, i.e. SH-17 (popularly known as Mysore Road)
and SH-86 (popularly known as Kanakapura Road). All these urban areas are
fast expanding. The major limiting
factor for their growth is not land, but water. There already exists a very serious shortage of water supply to
all these urban areas. For instance,
Bangalore’s average water consumption is about 80 lpcd (litres per capita per
day), compared to the recommended 200 lpcd, taking the aggregate consumption to
about 600 MLD.
In this context, the BMIC Project proposes to add five more cities to this
already heavily urbanised region and GOK has committed to supply 150 MLD of
water from River Cauvery. The projected
population in these new towns is variously stated as 5 lakhs or 7 lakhs, and
there is no estimate provided of floating population. 150 MLD of water is
sanctioned to a privileged 5 lakhs when 65 lakhs of people in Bangalore
struggle with little or no water supply!
The allotment to BMIC is also made at an average per capita consumption
of ranging from 250 to 300 lpcd! In
addition to this, the BMIC Project will receive 85 MLD of waste-water free for
non-potable use, depriving farmers who use it presently for various
agricultural purposes. This is also a region with extensive irrigation network
based on the River Cauvery basin.
In view of the serious water problem in this region, there is very heavy
extraction of ground water leading to an alarming drop in ground water
levels. Over time the neglect of the
tank systems has resulted in poor storage capacity adversely affecting the
recharge potential of the aquifers. A
major water crisis is thus looming in the region. If to this is added the pressure of additional urban areas, the
crisis will only deepen further and become unmanageable over time. This particularly given that there is no
guarantee to limiting the population increase in the new townships.
The EIA makes absolutely no reference to this problem, and thus offers no
solutions.
b)
Unregulated
Growth of Urban Areas: The
BMIC Project is clearly catering to the higher income bracket who can afford a
lavish lifestyle and the townships are being designed keeping this in
view. Consequently it is a population
that will make:
·
very heavy demands of water, land and energy,
·
is based on personalised mode of transport,
·
a consumptive pattern of development that is
antithetical to the sustainable cities concept gaining precedence the world
over, and
·
proposes a highly disruptive and unhealthy social
development wherein lavish lifestyles clash with the daily struggle for
livelihood of the poor.
Even when one assumes that
the townships themselves will be well planned and developed, there is no
guarantee of the areas immediately outside the townships from getting
urbanised, especially in an unplanned manner. As is wont agriculture would become impossible as drainage
patterns and other support systems would be adversely affected along the
Corridor. It is quite possible that farmers in such areas may resort to selling
their land to gain the advantage of appreciated land values. This will add to the pressure of
urbanisation and sooner than later would become impossible to manage with
twelve cities and two, possibly three, metros in an approx. 100 kms. belt. This
promises to make the region the most heavily urbanised and industrialised in an
environmental condition that can least support it.
Most importantly it will not help decongest any of the existing urban areas, as
the real estate values in these new townships will be unaffordable to even the
middle classes who are already struggling to find affordable housing in the
existing urban areas. Consequently the
Expressway too will be of little relevance to them.
The EIA does not make any reference to this scenario.
c)
Impact
of industrialisation: Unless
the nature of industry is known it is impossible to predict its environmental
impacts. The BMIC Project townships
include plans for heavy industrialisation which it is claimed is of the
non-polluting variety. NICE literature
discusses the possible industrialisation in these townships as being largely
from the computer sector. It is a
reality in Bangalore, for instance, that most software majors have already
heavily invested in developing campuses of their own keeping in view their long
term growth. A large section of those
employed in this sector are oriented towards living in the main city or in its suburbs. The dot.com bust has only oriented the
traditional computer industry to be more prudent with their long-term ventures,
and thus very little may be expected in terms of trans-locating the existing
facilities to the new townships proposed, if that were even a consideration. It may thus become expedient in time that
the land acquired for such “non-polluting” industrial townships may be
reallocated for polluting units at a later date with consequent problems.
This scenario has not been examined in the EIA or credible arguments dismissing
the same offered.
d)
Tourism
and Health Care industry: NICE bases its
development of industrial and urban areas that are “non-polluting” by relying
heavily on investments in the tourism and health care sectors. It is thus proposed that these sectors are
environmentally benign, in comparative terms.
Amongst the main tourism projects is a massive 18-hole golf course on
the banks of River Cauvery. The other
tourism projects involve luxury hotels and resorts, entertainment centres, etc.
Golf courses, for instance, are some of the worst types of tourism projects
that can be envisaged, especially in a context where pressure on land is high
and water is sparse. Not only do they
involve the complete removal of topsoil replaced with artificial turf, but also
are very heavy water guzzlers, besides involving heavy introduction of
pesticides and fertilisers. It must
therefore be a cause of great concern that such a facility is being developed
along the River Cauvery. The downstream
impacts on a major source of drinking water in the region are bound to be
serious, despite all the precautionary measures that can be taken, for there is
no single point source of pollution.
The Health care centres planned are largely super-speciality hospitals aimed at
attracting wealthy patients from abroad, especially to Health Resorts. These are also serious sources of pollution
and the risks have not been examined.
Such concerns are not even discussed in the EIA.
e)
Power
Plant locations: GOK has committed to allow NICE to develop
power plants with an aggregated capacity of 500 MW. Thus there may be one or several plants. The choice of fuel has also not been
fixed. Nowhere in the EIA is there a
mention of location choices of power plants.
Clearly, existing guidelines, even if rarely forced by the Ministry, do
not allow for location of power plants close to human settlements. Thus it is likely that these plants would be
located in areas that would additionally have to acquired.
This concern has been completely glossed over in the EIA.
f)
Waste
Water Treatment Plants and Landfill sites: There is a
growing realisation of the serious hazards that waste water treatment plants
and solid waste landfills pose to the environment. Thus their siting has to be considered with great care. Beyond a mere acknowledgement that these
facilities will be developed, what measures will be adopted to contain their
impacts and where these facilities will be located are hardly discussed in the
EIA. It is not clear if the landfill
sites are within the new townships, or fresh area will be acquired. It is also not clear where the outlets for
discharge of sewage and industrial effluents will be located in any or all of
these townships and attendant facilities to the Expressway. There thus remains
the serious risk of contamination of several or all of the surface and ground
water bodies along the project alignment, and would thus threaten the potable
and irrigation water supply security presently enjoyed by communities.
g)
Altered
Drainage Pattern, Flooding and Waterlogging: A
long walled Expressway, as described in the BMIC Project, has a way of acting
as channels for water drainage. This
would affect existing drainage patterns drastically, and result in adverse
impacts on agricultural areas, surface water bodies and ground water recharge.
Further, depending on the topography, it would lead to certain areas,
especially valley points, getting waterlogged.
It is normally expected when evaluating such projects to provide a
topographic description of these likely impact areas and describe the likely
solutions. However, no attempt has been
made in this regard.
h)
Pressure
on Forests and Fragmentation of Habitats: Besides
destruction of forests for the BMIC Project, several well know wildlife
habitats will be threatened by exposure to the Expressway and townships.
Admittedly, the following forests will be adversely affected as the Expressway
runs through them: Kalkere, Turahalli,
“Unnamed State Forest”, Handigundi, Chikmangudde and Kurnagere. In addition, the townships would be
developed adjacent to, in most cases, and not more than 5 kms., in some, of the
following forests: Banneghatta National
Park, Ragihalli, Sulukere, Kumbalgoddu, Basavanadar, Tenginkal, Maklai, Kombinakal
and Chamundi. It is very much possible
for urban areas to expand in time, and the choice of location of BMIC townships
close to these forests indicate that there is of deforestation and denudation
in these forests. An immediate impact
is the fragmentation of wildlife habitats.
Badamanavarthi and Kalkere forests between Bangalore and Bannerghatta are
amongst the best refuse that exists for birds, small mammals, amphibians and
reptiles close to Bangalore. These are
forests that have kindled the interest in many a budding birdwatcher, and never
tired the seasoned one from returning for more. Far from even acknowledging the rich biodiversity of the area,
the EIA provides a mocking “list of species” found in the region. These must be
contrasted by well documented and publicly available lists of birds that have
been sighted in some of these forests.
As an instance the bird list for Bannerghatta National Park is annexed
at Annexure G.
i)
Threats to Wetlands: There are tens of wetlands (irrigation tanks,
in particular) along the alignment for the BMIC Project that will either be
grossly affected or exposed to risks.
There is an admission in the EIA that several of the irrigation tanks
will be sources of water for the project during construction. Considering that their storage is already
very poor in most cases, the heavy extraction of this water for construction is
bound to deplete the water availability for agriculture in the atchkat areas. There is also an admission by NICE that it would desilt upto 251
tanks along the alignment. This is to
be done by using heavy machinery, and the silt recovered would be used in road
works. As already explained earlier,
the very commitment to desilt so many tanks in no time is ridiculous,
considering the difficulty and expensiveness of such operations. Further, it is a well-known fact that this
silt is extremely fertile and a highly contested source of nutrients for
farmlands. It is a shame that such nutrient rich soil is to be used for road
works, especially when it is not a good material for such construction! This is besides the attendant impacts on the
tank-bed due to the use of heavy machinery in desilting leading to compaction
of soil and poor seepage to recharge ground water aquifers. The impacts of interfering with social
systems that support such desilting periodically have also not been
considered.
Importantly, the fantastic diversity of
waterfowl that is seen in several of these tanks has not even been given a
cursory appraisal. Just to indicate
how grossly inadequate the EIA is in this aspect, a list of waterfowl seen in
Tailur tank, which will be destroyed by the Expressway, and the neighbouring
Kokkarebellur area is listed at Annexure
H.
j)
Quarrying,
Brickmaking and Landfilling: The
proposed alignment for the BMIC Project passes through some dramatic rocky
landscapes where the potential for quarrying granite is considered
enormous. It is admitted in the EIA that the granite for all the construction
work will come from this region. The extent and amount of quarrying work that
will be induced to build an Expressway and Five Towns can thus be
imagined! Again, the usual
dismissal attitude of the adverse impacts on the surroundings continues to mark
the discussion in the EIA. This even as
there remain serious concerns whether GOK has considered the loss of revenue in
allowing NICE to exploit the granite potential unbarred.
It should also be noted that
brick-making would be another major activity related to construction. Top soil is invariably lost for this, and
going from experiences in other areas of new urbanisation in Karnataka, farmers
will be induced to sell the top soil of their lands at what seems attractive
propositions in the short term. The
permanent scars that this will leave on the landscape, the permanent loss of
such areas to agriculture and the secondary displacement of farming families
this will cause, has not been considered at all. Brick-making is also heavily reliant on fuel-wood, and considering
the massive scale of construction activity proposed, there is little chance for
the Forest Department or local villagers of protecting neighbouring forests
from illegal extraction of wood.
Another serious secondary impact of this project to landforms is the idea of
leveling the project area for the expressway and townships. Even considering that this region is largely
consisting of plains, there exist in several locations deep valleys that is
proposed to be filled in by soil brought from elsewhere. Thus, not only is the impact on the project
land itself, but also be quite severe on neighbouring landscapes, especially
the tens of hillocks scattered along the way.
Mangalore City and surroundings has witnessed the scale of such
destruction in the recent past and there is no guarantee that the same would
not repeat here. Landslides and
flashfloods are attendant risks of such major landform transformations that
have not been considered in the EIA.
k)
Overall
Pollution from these facilities: Even a cursory appraisal of the nature of developments
proposed in the townships would suggest that the volume and impact of pollution
would be very high. It would thus be necessary to project
various scales and scenarios of pollution, especially of air and water,
describe specific areas of impact and offer most likely solutions. Nothing of
this sort is even attempted in the EIA.
What is instead provided are some ambient air, noise and water
monitoring data that does little to project the likely impact scenario. Even this analysis is largely guided by the
concerns of traffic on the Expressway and hardly any attention is paid to the
more serious impacts from the townships and their various facilities.
Section V Analysis of what is
contained in the MECON EIA of the BMIC Project
15. The Question of Alternatives:
a) Railway Corridor: It has been admitted in the
EIA (Ch. 1: p4 of 36) that the existing single-track railway corridor between
Bangalore and Mysore supports the movement of 10 passenger and 4 freight trains
“in each direction”. It has also been
admitted that over 10,000 passengers travel by train “in each direction” every
day. Consequently, it could easily be
assumed that the doubling of the tracks would allow for the movement of at
least 40,000 passengers daily, with existing trains. This move would thus take half the pressure off the existing
80,000 trips daily from all modes of transport.
Deo & Associates Proposal: The
Karnataka State Planning Board and National Institute of Advanced Studies
commissioned a study by M/s Deo & Associates during September 1998
to understand the feasibility of developing the existing railway line into a
“High Speed Double Track Electric Rail Link” between Bangalore and Mysore. This
study has concluded that the track doubling and electrification can be achieved
for a cost of “Rs. 500 crores for using existing alignment and Indian
technology for doubling and electrification” and that “it can provide a service
every 20 minutes during peak hours”. The
report adds that such a service “can be expanded in future to 10 minutes
interval.” It proposes that with “I
hour travel and frequent service many will shift to Mysore… and work in
Bangalore due to climate, culture, education and other factors”. Such a corridor, the report indicates, “can
provide passenger journeys of about 60,000 per day”. Marginal land acquisition
will be involved to accommodate “moderate changes at few places” to reduce rail
distance to “about 120 kms. from 139 kms. at present”. A relevant extract from this study is
annexed at Annexure I.
Southern Railways Proposal: Mr. N.
Krithivasan, General Manager, Southern Railways, has categorically stated that
the Railways is prepared to “cover 50%
of the cost” of doubling the track between Bangalore and Mysore. He describes this project as a “definite reality” and proposes the estimate cost,
including electrification, to be around Rs. 200 crores. He also has stated that the Railways
have already committed to support the doubling of the railway track between
Bangalore and Ramanagara, a distance of 60 kms. and that with the support of
the GOK, the rest of the distance to Mysore could be easily covered. In this connection, he explains that HUDCO
has come up with a proposal to develop colonies on land within a two kms. radius
of the existing stations, and the amount generated from this could be channeled
towards the track doubling cost. Even
as the track itself would not require additional land acquisition, the colonies
would come up in existing urban areas in stations along the railway corridor (6
points in all), not just Bangalore and Mysore, and therefore land was not a
problem in most places. A copy of The
Hindu article dated 01 June 2000 describing this proposal is annexed at Annexure J.
The EIA deliberately suppresses these
viable alternatives, dismisses even the notion that these are feasible, without
any reasonable justification, and proceeds to eulogise the heavily land and
resource reliant BMIC Project as the only option for the future.
b)
The
Existing Road Network:
There is an active proposal of the Public Works Department of GOK pending
consideration of the World Bank for a loan amount equivalent to US$ 360
millions (approx. Rs. 1,700 crores) towards upgradation of the road network in
Karnataka. The Karnataka Road
Development Corporation has already come up with a scheme to upgrade the
existing Sh-17, Bangalore-Mysore Road, to a two-lane carriage-way with
motorable shoulder and adequate pavement.
This would involve minimal land acquisition, ensure improved safety of
travel as existing design problems that are causing accidents will be
straightened out and the quality of the road will be vastly improved to cater
to higher speeds and volumes. The World
Bank is likely to clear this loan soon and a copy of the Bank document
detailing loan features for the Karnataka State Highways Improvement Project ID
No. P070421 is annexed at Annexure K.
c)
The
Combination of the Above alternatives: The cost of doubling of the railway corridor and
development of the existing does not exceed Rs. 700 crores. Further it involves no need for extensive
land acquisition resulting in displacement of rural communities who have no
other resort but to end up in slums or slum-like urban settings. Considering
these viable options, especially the desired reliance on public transport systems,
it would seem probable that the existing pressure on Bangalore City in
particular, and Mysore as well can be eased.
The EIA does not reveal any of these existing GOK proposals at all.
It would be a travesty of our times if
such clearly feasible, fully accessible and publicly manageable proposals were
given short shrift. This only
because GOK succumbed to the wild imaginations of an investor proposing the
replication of the ugly urban sprawl typical of the US, in India, a country
that can hardly afford such indulgences.
The suppression of viable alternatives must be particularly studied in
the context of this statement in the EIA, that “(b)y limiting access to the
expressway and charging tolls, local
traffic will be discouraged from using the Corridor” (Ch.2, p. 14 of 36). Question is for whom is the expressway being
built then?
16.
Colonisation
by “urban forces” and the Question of Sovereignty: It has been admitted in the
EIA that “India is a very large country, yet there is very little land for human
settlement available at reasonable prices.
Availability of efficient transportation can bring in more land to be colonised by urban forces and developed
into satellite towns. Close
collaboration between infrastructure providers and the real estate and
construction industries can be the answer” (Ch. 2, p. 29 of 36). “Colonisation” as a concept of development,
involves denial of sovereignty of those “colonised”. Clearly the concept here is to allow “urban forces” to take over
the life and livelihood rights of the rural masses, a concept of development
that violently agitates against the basic precepts of our Constitution and
democracy. It has also been submitted
in the EIA that “the governance to be
used (in the new proposed townships) will be determined by a public process
facilitated by the Consortium and the Government of Karnataka. The likely government structure will be
conventional Municipal Council supported by a Urban Development Authority. Upon full transition to local governance, the
Consortium will participate in governing responsibilities on the basis of land
ownership, occupancy or other measures of local residency” (Ch. 2, p. 30 of
36). (Emphasis not in original)
Such a proposal is an extremely disturbing trend as:
a)
It’s very conception is antithetical to the
Constitutional 73rd and 74th Amendments, in as much as
denying citizens the right to elect the local government. This is also in violation of the
Representation of People’s Act. It is shocking that GOK is a party to such
proposals that patently violate basic democratic features of our society,
especially given that the “Consortium” (which it is claimed includes two
foreign entities) “will participate in governing responsibilities”, and that
without being elected!
b)
The EIA further submits that keeping in view the need
to retain such control by the Consortium as described above, “the GOK has
recognised the need for….. a single planning authority for BMIC, …..termed as
Comprehensive Planning Authority”.
Powers have been assigned already to this Authority and “care is taken
to include the entire village through which the Expressway passes so that the
development activity for each village is comprehensive” (Ch. 2, p. 31 of
36). This is nothing short of snatching
away of the fundamental rights of villages to elect their own Panchayats and
manage their own affairs as enabled in the Panchayat Raj Act.
Clearly this must be the
concept of “Singapore” that then Chief Minister of Karnataka Mr. Devegowda
applauded when the visiting Singapore Prime Minister declared in a public forum
that India could do with “less civil rights”.
And perhaps the same “Singapore” that the present Chief Minister Mr. S.
M. Krishna wants as a model of development for the Bangalore Mysore
Corridor. Such, as is also being
experimented in the Malaysian State of Johor.
Where the “Johor State Government will acquire and cede land to the
Consortium (there), which in turn will develop the primary infrastructure for a
new township on a 10,291 ha site” that will cover the cost of financing “land
acquisition, the construction of bridges and expressways”. This is the only other instance of the BMIC
model of development that the EIA itself quotes, and thus Karnataka and Johor could together take the pride of place in the world
for a new form of colonisation, by the “urban forces”!
The concept of “colonisation” and denial of fundamental rights is
thus being institutionalised by the participation of GOK, a first such instance
in the entire country. Other
examples cited from within India, are projects involving road development only,
and thus cannot form any basis of comparison to the massive BMIC Project.
17.
A
Real Estate Scam?
a)
Admittedly,
a Real Estate development: C B Richard Ellis, a US real estate developer
that is facing major problems resulting in layoffs and possible takeover, is
the consultant to NICE providing “development strategy” to the BMIC
Project. In an interview with Business
Standard dated 20 January 2000 (copy annexed at Annexure L) Anshuman Magazine, South Asia Managing Director of
Richard Ellis claims that “for the first
time in India, an infrastructure project is cross-subsidised by a real estate
component during the capital intensive stages of the project. The real estate component will positively
influence the project cash flows, thus making the venture financially
viable.” It is further stated that “the BMIC Project would act as a role model
for all future infrastructure projects with long gestation periods, where
associated real estate would be used as an asset base to cross-subsidise the
funding of the project”.
b)
Government
Land Transferred under Mysterious Circumstances: The
GOK has acted to deliver such a concept for the first time in India by
concluding a Framework Agreement with NICE on 3rd April 1997, on the
basis of land acquisition process for the project that has been initiated for
over 21,000 acres. An article in The
New Indian Express dated 5th May 2001(annexed at Annexure M) reveals now that “the
transfer of Government land was made under mysterious circumstances”.
It claims that “according to highly placed sources, the present Government was
worried about the Order issued by its predecessor in favour of Karnataka
Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) for the use of BMIC, transferring
about 5,000 acres of Government land.
The GO was issued on October 7, 1999, when the results of the General
Elections to the State Assembly and Parliament were coming out. The then ruling Janata Dal Government,
headed by J H Patel was trailing in the election and the Congress was all set
to form the Government. In one of the
hurried orders, the then ruling Government had issued the GO before bowing out
of office”.
Secondly, “the land required for BMIC project was acquired under the Karnataka
Industrial Area Development Act and the acquired land was with Revenue
Department. However, the GO was issued
and signed by the Under Secretary of Public Works Department. The then Government had used the loop hole
that PWD was involved with Infrastructure Development of the State and the GO
was issued”. Besides this, “the GO had
the list of land allotted in each village along the proposed corridor. However, the survey numbers and the extent
of land allotted to NICE in each survey numbers have (not) been mentioned in
the list”. Yet, “there was no clear
demarcation of extent of land available.
No survey or ‘panchanama’ was made in this connection to say which part
of the survey number was allotted for BMIC project. Though the GO state that about 5,000 acres of land was being
handed over to the NICE, the list of allotment shows that about 6,000 acres
would handed over for BMIC Project”.
The transfer of land in favour of NICE would be “for the period of 40
years” and “the lease rental of the land would be Rs. 10 per acre pre annum”.
These are clearly scandalous
revelations, that have perhaps not got the attention they deserve, due to
greater scandals that have been perpetrated on the people of this country in
recent times. However, it has to be a
cause of concern for agencies reviewing the project from the environmental
clearance angle, as:
·
The Government
land includes forest land, which can only be reassigned for non-forestry
purposes by the Ministry of Environment and Forests
·
If this is the situation in acquiring Government land,
where it is claimed there is no displacement of any sort whatsoever, then the
question remains what of those areas that are under private control and
notified for acquisition. If no ‘panchanama’ has been conducted for
government land, then the consequences of the same practice being adopted for
private lands could result in disastrous consequences, as it would mean
that we still do not know how many families will be affected by the project
directly and indirectly.
18.
Resettlement
and Rehabilitation Report of MECON: In the context of this
alleged real estate scam must be viewed the results of the “Resettlement and
Rehabilitation Report” prepared by MECON for NICE. It must be stated at the outset that NICE has absolutely no responsibility towards resettlement and
rehabilitation of the displaced. It
pays a certain amount of money to KIADB for land, and there ceases its
responsibility. Quite obviously this
payment would be based on the Baseline socio-economic survey conducted by MECON
for NICE.
We requested a competent statistician, Dr. Lakshmi Nilakantan, to review this
study for us, and her comments are annexed at Annexure N.
19.
BMIC
Project Cost:
In fundamental violation of the EIA Notification, the EIA submits
only the cost of developing the Expressway as Rs. 17,295 million (1999
estimate), up by 31% from the previous estimate of Rs. 13,187 million. No reference is ever made to the costs of
developing the townships, which will consume 2/3ds of the land that is to be
acquired and almost all of the water (Ch. 2, p. 33 of 36). In such context, it would be impossible for
the requisite cess charges to be fixed for the project, as is normally the case
in any project clearance.
20.
No
Disaster Management Plan:
The EIA has absolutely no reference to a disaster situation and
contains no disaster management plan. A
four page Environmental Management Plan is offered that contains little more
than the promise of ambient air quality monitoring and minimal civil engineering
precautions. The KSPCB NOC has done
little to check such shuffling.
21.
In
summary:
Given the shoddy quality of the information based on which NOC has
been granted by KSPCB and application for grant of environmental clearance is
awaited, it should be quite nigh impossible for the Ministry of Environment and
Forests to form any reasonable estimation of the project’s impacts. Quite
clearly this calls for an independent assessment of the impacts, including even
a site visit by the Expert Committee. Unless
such efforts are initiated, the project is liable to be rejected as being in
fundamental violation of the EIA Notification and standards prescribed for
Environment Impact Assessment.
Leo F. Saldanha
Coordinator
Environment Support Group
Endorsed
by:
Maj. General S.G.Vombatkere, VSM (Retd) S. Sridhar
M.E.(Struct.),Ph.D(I.I.T),F.I.E.(India),C.Eng INCERT
Convenor, Mysore Grahakara
Parishat 10 Sirur
Park B Street
475, 7th Main Road
Vijayanagar 1st Stage Sheshadripuram
MYSORE – 570 017 Bangalore
560 020
Tel: 91-821-515187/515150 Tel:
91-80-3364142
Email: sgvombatkere@hotmail.com Email: navbarat@blr.vsnl.net.in
ANNEXURE A
Exchange of correspondence with Mr. Richard Hangen
____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
Received: from mawamail.vhb.com [204.243.173.175] by mx05
via mtad (34FM.0700.12.01)
with ESMTP id 666FDcNH10885M05; Tue, 03 Apr 2001 13:07:52
GMT
Received: from localhost [127.0.0.1]
by mawamail.vhb.com
with XWall v3.12 ;
Tue, 3 Apr 2001 09:05:21 -0400
Received: by MAWAMAIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
id <H0BJ5TL7>; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 09:05:19 -0400
Message-ID:
<B7676659B306D5118CD20002B32C26922BD0B9@MAWAMAIL5>
From: "Hangen, Richard" <RHangen@VHB.com>
To: 'Leo Saldanha' <leosaldanha@usa.net>
Subject: RE: NICE involvement in Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure
Corridor
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 09:06:29 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Evidently we are suffering from some sort of
misunderstanding.My previous
email to you clearly stated that VHB is not a principal in
NICE .THAT MEANS
WE ARE NOT AN EQUITY PARTNER!!! We have not been involved
for five years and
do not have any documents to give you.I do not know of the
existence of any
scope defining a future role for us
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leo Saldanha [SMTP:leosaldanha@usa.net]
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 3:08 PM
> To: Hangen Richard
> Cc: sabeng@craftech.com; niceltd@vsnl.com
> Subject: NICE involvement in Bangalore Mysore
Infrastructure Corridor
>
> From:
>
> Environment Support Group ®
> S-3, Rajashree Apartments, 18/57, 1st Main Road, S. R.
K. Gardens,
> Jayanagar, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore 560 041. INDIA
> Telefax: 91-80-6341977 Fax: 91-80-6723926 (PP)
> Email: esg@bgl.vsnl.net.in
>
> (By Fax)
>
> TO:
> Mr. Richard Hangen
> President
> VHB/Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
> 101 Walnut Street
> P. O. Box 9151
> Watertown, MA 02471-9151
> Telephone: (617) 924-1770
> Fax: (617) 924-2286
>
> 02 April 2001
>
> Dear Mr. Hangen,
>
> Further to the emails we have exchanged over the past
week (copies
> enclosed),
> I wish to state that the Nandi Infrastructure Corridor
Enterprise (NICE),
> proposing to develop the Bangalore-Mysore
Infrastructure Corridor project,
> has
> operated in an extremely in-transparent manner since
its inception in
> 1995.
> There has been really very little opportunity for
anyone interested or
> affected to know who is really involved in the project,
either as
> promoters,
> or facilitators, or principals or in any other capacity
whatsoever.
>
> However, it must be pointed out that the official
website of NICE
> (http://business.vsnl.com/niceltd/)
presents the Consortium as follows:
> "The Consortium comprises the Kalyani Group of
Companies, VHB
> International
> LTD. and SAB International LTD. to develop the
Bangalore Mysore
> Infrastructure
> Corridor."
> The site also provides a direct link to the VHB site
along with other
> project
> development details from conception to the present
status.
>
> In view of the complete in-transparency involved in the
project I would
> like
> to request you to provide me access to the project's
public domain
> documents.
> I could provide you with a listing of these documents
if needed. Till
> this
> request is met with, it would seem appropriate to
address all parties
> involved
> in the description of the Consortium in the NICE
website, and other
> project
> literature that has been disseminated, with our
concerns.
>
> Further, in specific view of your statement with regard
to VHB involvement
> in
> your email to me dated 28 March 2001, could I request
you to please
> confirm:
>
> 1. Whether VHB has equity stake in the NICE Consortium
and,
> 2. What would be the scope of your future involvement
in the project,
> if any?
>
> As I am traveling, I could be reached via email at
leosaldanha@usa.net or
> at
> the above address.
>
> Yours very truly,
>
>
> Leo F. Saldanha
> Coordinator
> Environment Support Group
>
> Encl.: As above
>
> PS: This letter is being emailed to you as well at
rhangen@vhb.com.
>
> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 01 08:04AM EST
> From: "Hangen, Richard"
<RHangen@VHB.com>
> To: 'Leo Saldanha' <leosaldanha@usa.net>
> Cc: "'sabeng@craftech.com'"
<sabeng@craftech.com>
> Subject: RE: [RE: Request Appointment reg Bangalore
Mysore Corridor
> Projec t]
>
>
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
>
>
>
> Dear Mr.Saldanha:VHB is not and never has been a
principal in Nandi
> Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise(NICE).VHB was
engaged by NICE to
> prepare
> a preliminary plan for the BMIC.This plan was completed
in1995.Since then
> VHB has not been involved.Your characterization of
VHB'S involvement in
> current BMIC activities in your speeches is a total
misrepresentation of
> fact. We would prefer that you cease and desist from
making these
> statements. We will pursue all means available to us to
insure you concur
> with our request. Very truly yours, Richard E. Hangen
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Leo Saldanha [SMTP:leosaldanha@usa.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 2:03 PM
> > To: Hangen Richard
> > Subject: Re: [RE: Request Appointment reg
Bangalore Mysore Corridor
> > Project]
> >
> > Dear Mr. Hangen,
> >
> > The Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Emterprise,
promoted by the Kalyani
> > Group in
> > India, has repeatedly claimed that Vanasse Hangen
Brustlin Inc and SAB
> > International are the companies involved in the
project. There is also a
> > Karnataka State Government Order that describes
the project as involving
> > these
> > three companies.
> >
> > It is often the case that Indian parters of
international consortia
> > promoting
> > a project are not necessarily keeping their
counterparts info rmed of
> > developments. It is the case in this project that
there has been
> > widespread
> > opposition and critical questioning of the
including human rights
> excesses
> > involved in pushing the project forward. I would
believe it is in the
> > interest of all concerned, including participating
companies, to
> dialogue
> > and
> > understand the implications of such investments.
> >
> > Unless you are stating that Vanasse Hangen
Brustlin is a company that is
> > no
> > more involved in the project, I would believe
there is a great need for
> > such a
> > dialogue. Perhaps based on what you would hear
from me, you may be
> > enlightened
> > on the nature of your company's involvement in the
project.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Leo Saldanha
> >
> >
> > "Hangen, Richard"
<RHangen@VHB.com> wrote:
> > > Dear Mr.Saldanha. Thank you for your
message.I'm not sure what purpose
> a
> > > meeting with you would serve as nobody from
VHB has been involved with
> > BMIC
> > > for over 5 years.Furthermore,your
characterization of VHB as a
> principal
> > in
> > > the venture is not accurate.Very truly
yours.Richard E.Hangen.
> > >
(ANNEXURES B-G in Print Copy of Representation)
ANNEXURE G
BIRDS
OF BANNERGHATTA NATIONAL PARK
compiled
by
S.Karthikeyan,
# 24, opp. to Banashankari Temple,
Shakambarinagar,
8th Block Jayanagar, Bangalore - 560 082.
and
J.N.Prasad,
Merlin Nature Club, # 13, 8th cross, 30th main,
Sarakki
I.T.I Layout, J.P.Nagar I Phase, Bangalore - 560 078.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CHECKLIST
20 January 1996
The following checklist of Birds of Bannerghatta
National Park is based on confirmed personal records of the compilers between
1984 and 1996. This list consists of 186 species including those 4 species
marked with * are taken by George, J (1994): An annotated Checklist of the
Birds of Bangalore, Birdwatchers' Field Club of Bangalore, Bangalore. The
second column numbers refer to the serial number of the species as listed in
the Ripley, S.D (1983) Synopsis of the Birds of India & Pakistan, Bombay
Natural History Society. Bombay.
Family: Podicepididae
001 - 0005 - Podiceps ruficolis Little Grebe
Family: Phalacrocoracidae
002 - 0028 - Phalocrocorax niger Little cormorant
Family: Ardeidae
003 - 0035 - Ardea cinerea Grey Heron
004 - 0042 - Ardeola grayii Pond Heron
005 - 0044 - Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret
006 - 0047 - Egretta intermediata Median Egret
007 - 0048 - Ardeola striatus Little Green Heron
008 - 0049 - Egretta garzetta Little Egret
009 - 0052 - Nycticorax nycticorax Night Heron
Family: Ciconidae
010 - 0060 - Mycteria leucocephala Painted Stork
011 - 0061 - Anastomus oscitans Openbill Stork
Family: Anatidae
012 - 0088 - Dendrocygna javanica Lesser whistling
Teal
013 - 0097 - Anas poecilorhyncha Spotbill
Family: Accipitridae
014 - 0124 - Elanus caeruleus Blackwinged Kite
015 - 0130 - Pernis ptilorhyncos Honey Buzzard
016 - 0133 - Milvus migrans Pariah Kite
017 - 0135 - Haliastur indus Brahminy Kite
018 - 0138 - Accipiter badius Shikra
019 - 0157 - Butastur teesa White-eyed Buzzard
020 - 0161 - Spizaetus cirrahatus Crested
hawk-eagle
021 - 0163 - Hieraaetus fasciatus Bonneli's Eagle
022 - 0164 - Hieraaetus pennatus Booted Hawk Eagle
023 - 0168 - Aquila rapax Tawny Eagle
024 - 0172 - Ictinaetus malayensis Black Eagle
025 - 0178 - Sarcogyps calvus King vulture
026 - 185 - Gyps benghalensis Whitebacked Vulture
027 - 0187 - Neophron percnopterus Scavenger
Vulture
028 - 0190 - Circus macrurus Pale Harrier
029 - 0191 - Circus pygargus Montagu's Harrier
030 - 0195 - Circaetus gallicus Short-toed Eagle
031 - 0197 - Spilornis cheela Crested Serpent Eagle
Family: Falconidae
032 - 0211 - Falco perigrinus perigrinator Shaheen
Falcon
Family: Phasianidae
033 - 0246 - Francolinus pondicerianus Grey
partridge
034 - 0250 - Coturnix coturnix Common Quail *
035 - 0252 - Coturnix coramandelica Rain Quail
036 - 0257 - Perdicula asiatica Jungle Bush quail
037 - 0263 - Perdicula erythrorhyncha Painted Bush
Quail
038 - 0278 - Galloperdix lunulata Painted Spurfowl
039 - 0301 - Gallus sonneratii Grey Junglefowl
040 - 0311 - Pavo cristatus Common Peafowl
Family: Turnicidae
041 - 0316 - Turnix suscitator Common Bustard Quail
*
Family: Rallidae
042 - 0239 - Rallus striatus Bluebreasted Banded
Rail
043 - 0343 - Amourornis phoenicurus Whitebreasted
Waterhen
Family: Jacanidae
044 - 0358 - Hydrophasianus chirurgus
Pheasant-tailed Jacana
Family: Charadriidae
045 - 0366 - Vanellus indicus Redwattled Lapwing
046 - 0370 - Vanellus malabaricus Yellowwattled
Lapwing
047 - 0379/80 - Charadrius dubius Little ringed
Plover
048 - 0396 - Tringa ochropus Green Sandpiper
Family: Laridae
049 - 0463 - Sterna aurantia Indian River Tern
Family: Columbidae
050 - 0504 - Treron phoenicoptera Yellowlegged
Green Pigeon
051 - 0517 - Columba livia Blue Rock Pigeon
052 - 0521 - Columba elphinstonii Nilgiri wood
Pigeon *
053 - 0534 - Streptopelia decacto Indian Ring Dove
054 - 0537 - Streptopelia chinensis Spotted dove
055 - 0541 - Streptopelia senegalensis Little Brown
Dove
Family: Psittacidae
056 - 0550 - Psittacula krameri Roseringed Parakeet
057 - 0551 - Psittacula cyanocephala Blossomheaded
Parakeet
Family: Cuculidae
058 - 0571 - Clamator jacobinus Pied-crested cuckoo
059 - 0573 - Cuculus varius Common Hawk-Cuckoo
060 - 0584 - Cacomantis passerinus Plaintive cuckoo
061 - 0590 - Eudynamys scolopacea Koel
062 - 0595 - Rhophodytes viridirostris Small
Greenbilled Malkoha
063 - 0598 - Taccocua leschenaultii Sirkeer cuckoo
064 - 0602 - Centropus sinensis Crow-pheasant
Family: Strigidae
065 - 0606 - Tyto alba Barn Owl
066 - 0617 - Otus scops Scops owl
067 - 0627 - Bubo bubo Great Horned Owl
068 - 0631 - Bubo zeylonensis Brown Fish Owl
069 - 0652 - Athene brama Spotted Owlet
070 - 0657 - Strix ocellata Mottled Wood Owl
Family: Caprimulgidae
071 - 0671 - Caprimulgus indicus Indian Jungle
Nightjar
072 - 0675 - Caprimulgus macrurus Longtailed
Nightjar
073 - 0680 - Caprimulgus asiaticus Common Indian
Nightjar
Family: Apodidae
074 - 0694 - Apus melba Alpine Swift
075 - 0703 - Apus affinus House Swift
076 - 0709 - Hemiprocene longipennis Crested Tree
Swift
Family: Alcedinidae
077 - 0719 - Ceryle rudis Lesser Pied Kingfisher
078 - 0724 - Alcedo atthis Small Blue Kingfisher
079 - 0736 - Halcyon smyrnensis Whitebrested
Kingfisher
Family: Meropidae
080 - 0750 - Merops orientalis Small Green
Bee-eater
081 - 0753 - Nyctyornis athertoni Blue bearded
Bee-eater
Family: Coraciidae
082 - 0756 - Coracias bengalensis Indian Roller
Family: Upupidae
083 - 0765 - Upupa epops Hoopoe
Family: Capitonidae
084 - 0781 - Megalainma zeylanica Large Green
Barbet
085 - 0785 - Megalaima viridis Small Green Barbet
086 - 0792 - Megalaima haemacephala Crimsonbreasted
Barbet
Family: Picidae
087 - 0804 - Micropternus brachyurus Rufous
Woodpecker
088 - 0808 - Picus myrmecophoneus Little
Scalybellied Woodpecker
089 - 0820 - Dinopium bengalense Lesser
Goldenbacked Woodpecker
090 - 0847 - Picoides maharattensis Yellowfronted
Pied Woodpecker
091 - 0852 - Picoides nanus Pygmy Woodpecker
Family: Pittidae
092 - 0867 - Pitta brachyura Indian Pitta
Family: Alaudidae
093 - 0000 - Mirafra spp. Bush Larks
094 - 0878 - Eremopterix grisea Ashycrowned
Finch-Lark
095 - 0883 - Ammomanes phoenicurus Rufoustailed
Finch-Lark
Family: Hirundinidae
096 - 0914 - Hirundo concolor Dusky Crag Martin
097 - 0917 - Hirundo rustica Common Swallow
098 - 0921 - Hirundo smithii Wiretailed Swallow
099 - 0927 - Hirundo daurica Redrumped Swallow
Family: Lanidae
100 - 0940 - Lanius vittatus Baybacked Shrike
101 - 0946 - Lanius schach Rufousbacked Shrike
102 - 0949 - Lanius cristatus Brown Shrike
Family: Oriolidae
103 - 0953 - Oriolus oriolus Golden Oriole
104 - 0959 - Oriolus xanthornus Blackheaded Oriole
Family: Dicruridae
105 - 0963 - Dicrurus adsimilis Black Drongo
106 - 0965 - Dicrurus leucophaeus Grey Drongo
107 - 0967 - Dicrurus caerulescens Whitebellied
Drongo
108 - 0973 - Dicrurus hottentotus Haircrested
Drongo
Family: Artamidae
109 - 0982 - Artamus fuscus Ashy Swallow Shrike
Family: Sturnidae
110 - 0987 - Sturnus malabaricus Greyheaded Myna
111 - 0994 - Sturnus pagodarum Blackheaded Myna
112 - 1006 - Acridotheres tristis Indian Myna
113 - 1010 - Acridotheres fuscus Jungle Myna
114 - 1016 - Gracula religiosa Hill Myna
Family: Corvidae
115 - 1034 - Dendrocitta vagabunda Indian Tree Pie
116 - 1049 - Corvus splendens House Crow
117 - 1057 - Corvus machrorhynchos Jungle Crow
Family: Camphephagidae
118 - 1070 - Tephrodornis pondicerianus Common Wood
Shrike
119 - 1072 - Coracina novaehollandiae Large
Cuckoo-Shrike
120 - 1079 - Coracina melanoptera Blackheaded
Cuckoo-Shrike
121 - 1081 - Pericrocotus flammeus Scarlet Minivet
122 - 1094 - Pericrocotus cinnamomeus Small Minivet
Family: Irenidae
123 - 1100 - Aegithinia tiphia Common Iora
124 - 1104 - Chloropsis aurifrons Goldfronted
Chloropsis
125 - 1107 - Chloropsis cochinchinensis Jerdons's
Chloropsis
Family: Pycnonotidae
126 - 1120 - Pycnonotus jocosus Redwhiskered Bulbul
127 - 1128 - Pycnonotus cafer Redvented Bulbul
128 - 1135 - Pycnonotus xantholaemus Yellowthroated
Bulbul
129 - 1138 - Pycnonotus luteolus Whitebrowed Bulbul
Family: Muscicapidae
130 - 1154 - Pellorneum ruficeps Spotted Babbler
131 - 1174 - Pomatorhinus horsfieldii Slatyheaded
Scimitar Babbler
132 - 1221 - Dumetia hyperythra Whitethroated
Babbler
133 - 1231 - Chrysomma sinense Yellow-eyed Babbler
134 - 1254 - Turdoides caudatus Common Babbler
135 - 1263 - Turdoidus striatus Jungle Babbler
136 - 1267 - Turdoides affinis Whiteheaded Babbler
137 - 1407 - Muscicapa latirostris Brown Flycatcher
138 - 1411 - Muscicapa parva Redbreasted Flycatcher
139 - 1442 - Muscicapa tickelliae Tickell's Blue
Flycatcher
140 - 1445 - Muscicapa thalassina Verditer
Flycatcher
141 - 1446 - Muscicapa albicaudata Nilgiri
Flycatcher
142 - 1452 - Rhipidura albicollis Whitespotted
Fantail Flycatcher
143 - 1458 - Rhipidura aureola Whitebrowed Fantail
Flycatcher
144 - 1461 - Terpsiphone paradisii Paradise
Flycatcher
145 - 1465 - Hypothymus azurea Blacknaped Blue
Flycatcher
146 - 1503 - Prinia hodgsonii Franklin's Wren
Warbler
147 - 1511 - Prinia subflava Indian Wren Warbler
148 - 1517 - Prinia socialis Ashy Wren Warbler
149 - 1521 - Prinia sylvatica Jungle Wren Warbler
150 - 1535 - Orthotomus sutorius Tailor bird
151 - 1550 - Acrocephalus stentoreus Indian Great
Reed Warbler
152 - 1556 - Acrocephalus dumetorum Blyth's Reed
Warbler
153 - 1565 - Sylvia hortensis Orphean Warbler
154 - 1570 - Sylvia curuca Lesser Whitethroat
155 - 1579 - Phylloscopus affinis Tickell's leaf
Warbler
156 - 1605 - Phylloscopus trochiloides Greenish
Leaf Warbler
157 - 1650 - Erithacus brunneus Indian Blue Chat
158 - 1662 - Copysychus saularis Magpie Robin
159 - 1672 - Phoenicurus ochruros Black redstart
160 - 1701 - Saxicola caprata Pied Bush Chat
161 - 1720 - Saxicoloides fulicata Indian Robin
162 - 1723 - Monticola cinclorhynchus Blueheaded
Rock Thrush
163 - 1726 - Monticola solitarius Blue Rock Thrush
164 - 1734 - Zoothera citrina Whitethroated Ground
Thrush
165 - 1755 - Turdus merula Blackbird
Family: Paridae
166 - 1794 - Parus major Grey Tit
167 - 1811 - Parus nuchalis Yellowcheeked Tit *
Family: Motacillidae
168 - 1852 - Anthus hodgsonii Indian Tree Pipit
169 - 1857 - Anthus novaseelandiae Paddyfield Pipit
170 - 1884 - Motacilla cinerea Grey Wagtail
171 - 1891 - Motacilla maderaspatensis Large Pied
Wagtail
Family: Dicaeidae
172 - 1892 - Dicaeum agile Thickbilled Flowerpecker
173 - 1899 - Dicaeum erythrorhyncos Tickell's
Flowerpecker
Family: Nectarinidae
174 - 1907 - Nectarinia zeylonica Purplerumped
Sunbird
175 - 1911 - Nectarinia lotenia Loten's Sunbird
176 - 1917 - Nectarinia asiatica Purple Sunbird
Family: Zosteropidae
177 - 1933 - Zosterops palpebrosa White-eye
Family: Ploceidae
178 - 1938 - Passer domesticus House Sparrow
179 - 1957 - Ploceus philippinus Baya Weaver Bird
180 - 1962 - Ploceus manyar Streaked weaver bird
181 - 1964 - Estrilda amandava Red Munia
182 - 1966 - Lonchura malabarica Whitethroated
Munia
183 - 1968 - Lonchura striata Whitebacked Munia
184 - 1974 - Lonchura punctata Spotted Munia
185 - 1978 - Lonchura malacca Blackheaded Munia
Family: Fringlilidae
186 - 2011 - Carpodacus erythrinus Common Rosefinch
